document-quality-review

name	document-quality-review
description	Review Markdown, Word, PDF, spreadsheet, or presentation deliverables for factual support, internal consistency, completeness, usability, and visible quality before delivery.

Document Quality Review

Review the deliverable and its available source material without changing the original files. Identify issues that would prevent a reader from trusting, understanding, or using the result.

Review

1. Establish the intended audience, purpose, required format, and acceptance criteria from the request and nearby project files. Do not invent requirements that are not supported by the available context.
2. Inspect the final rendered form when layout matters. Source text alone cannot establish that a Word document, PDF, spreadsheet, or presentation renders correctly.
3. Trace important claims, numbers, quotations, and conclusions to the supplied sources. Mark unsupported claims as unverified rather than filling gaps from memory.
4. Check calculations, units, dates, names, links, terminology, headings, cross-references, and repeated values for consistency.
5. Apply the relevant sections of the review checklist. Skip sections that do not apply instead of producing empty boilerplate.
6. Report issues in descending severity. For each issue include its location, observed evidence, impact, and a concrete correction. Distinguish confirmed defects from questions or missing evidence.

Examples

• For a board-report PDF backed by source spreadsheets, render the PDF, trace headline metrics to source cells, and flag a chart label that conflicts with the underlying period. Do not rewrite the report unless correction is requested.
• For a spreadsheet deliverable, inspect formulas, units, totals, visible error states, and the rendered workbook. If recalculation or a source file is unavailable, state that limitation instead of treating displayed values as verified.
• For a Markdown guide with no supplied source material, verify structure, links, internal consistency, and usability, but label factual claims as unverified rather than searching for evidence outside the agreed scope.

Output

Start with one of these verdicts:

• Ready: no material issue blocks delivery.
• Ready with minor fixes: only low-impact corrections remain.
• Not ready: at least one issue could mislead the reader, break use, or violate an explicit requirement.

Then provide a compact table with Severity, Location, Finding, Evidence, and Suggested fix. End with the checks performed and any checks that could not be completed.

Do not silently edit, publish, send, delete, or overwrite files. If the user asks for corrections, preserve the original unless they explicitly authorize replacement.